[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Krishnamoorthy vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 30 April, 2026
Crl.OP(MD)No.22939 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.22939 of 2025, 770 & 771 of 2026
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.19881 of 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22939 of 2025
Krishnamurthy
... Petitioner/Accused No.2
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
OCU, CBCID,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli District.
.... Respondent / Complainant
2. J.Senthilrajan
.... Respondent /
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the Impugned ChargeSheet
against the Petitioner in PRC No.5/2024 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate Court No.1, Tirunelveli, in Crime No.03/2022 dated
1/49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.22939 of 2025
13.09.2022 on the file of OCU, CBCID, Tirunelveli City and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankara Narayanan,
Senior counsel,
Mr.Ramaswamy Meyyappan
For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
For R-2 : Mr.N.R.Elango,
Senior counsel,
Mr.R.Anand
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.770 of 2026
S.Vaikundarajan
.... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by, the Inspector of Police,
Palayamkottai Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
Crime No.402 of 2021
... Respondent / Complainant
2. Marikannan
... Respondent /
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records of the Impugned FIR in Crime No.
402/2021 dated 20.06.2021 on the file of the Palayamkottai Police
Station, Tirunelveli City and quash the same.
2/49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.22939 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.Ramaswamy Meyyappan
For R-1 : Mr.S.Ravi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R-2 : Mr.N.R.Elango,
Senior counsel,
Mr.R.Anand
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.771 of 2026
S.Vaikundarajan
.... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by, the Inspector of Police,
Anjugramam Police Station,
Kanniyakumari District.
Crime No.221 of 2022
.... Respondent / Complainant
2. Muthukrishnan
.... Respondent /
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.
221/2022 on the file of the 1st respondent, and quash the same as
against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ramaswamy Meyyappan
For R-1 : Mr.S.Ravi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
3/49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.22939 of 2025
For R-2 : Mr.N.R.Elango,
Senior counsel,
Mr.R.Anand
COMMON ORDER
Preface:
These three Criminal Original Petitions, though arising out of
different crime numbers and different incidents, are inseparably
linked by a common factual background, namely, a long-drawn
intra-family dispute between rival factions of the V.V. Mineral family
concerning control, possession, management and enjoyment of
immovable properties, industrial establishments, machineries, and
business concerns.
2. The petitions invite this Court to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, on the plea that the criminal process has been set in
motion not for vindication of penal law, but as an instrument of
pressure in a larger civil and commercial conflict.
3. At the same time, the respondents would urge that the mere
existence of civil litigation cannot eclipse criminality, if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
allegations, taken at face value, disclose cognizable offences; and
that the petitioners are, in substance, seeking a pre-trial
adjudication upon disputed facts, impermissible in proceedings
under Section 528 BNSS.
4. The exercise before this Court is, therefore, one of judicial
calibration. On the one hand lies the duty of this Court to prevent
abuse of process; on the other, the equally binding self-restraint
against throttling legitimate prosecution at the threshold.
5. Since the factual background, the parties, the family matrix,
and a substantial part of the legal submissions overlap, all the three
petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common
judgment. However, as the allegations, stages of prosecution, and
legal considerations are not identical, the analysis and relief shall be
separately dealt with for each case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The prosecution narrative across the three cases.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22939 of 2025.
6. The prosecution case in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22939 of 2025, as
could be gathered from the complaint, the FIR, the materials
collected during investigation, and the final report, is that disputes
existed concerning the control, management and enjoyment of the
properties and business establishments connected with M/s. V.V.
Mineral and its group concerns, as between the family of the de facto
complainant and that of the first accused, namely, Mr. S.
Vaikundarajan.
7. According to the prosecution, in the backdrop of earlier civil
proceedings and orders passed by this Court in relation to
administration and supervision of the disputed properties, a Receiver
had been appointed and certain learned Advocates had also been
appointed as Assistants to the learned Receiver for the purpose of
inspection, supervision and allied administrative acts in respect of
the properties falling within the schedules dealt with by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 23.04.2021,
pursuant to such orders and after prior intimation, the learned
Assistants to the Receiver visited certain properties including the
New Rice Mill, Omni Bus Stand and the Head Office, which,
according to the complainant, were under the control of his family,
and that the inspection was documented through video recording.
9. The prosecution would further state that thereafter, at about
2.15 p.m., the learned Assistants to the Receiver proceeded to
inspect the premises of V.V. Mineral Garnet Industries situated at
Vallanvilai, which was said to be under the control of the first
accused and his faction. According to the complainant, he, along
with his counsel, his driver, videographers and staff, entered the said
premises with the permission of the learned Assistants to the
Receiver for the purpose of valuation, documentation and
videographing the status of the premises, including the condition of
machineries, equipment and mineral stocks.
10. It is alleged that while such videography and
documentation were in progress, the first accused, namely, Mr. S.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Vaikundarajan, objected to the same, abused the complainant in
filthy language and attempted to assault him. The prosecution
version further states that the first accused forcibly took one camera
from the hands of one of the persons present and threw it on the
floor, thereby causing damage.
11. It is the further allegation of the prosecution that
immediately thereafter, Accused Nos.2 to 9, including the present
petitioner/A2, joined the first accused and participated in assaulting
the complainant and the persons accompanying him, including the
driver and videographers. It is alleged that during the course of the
occurrence, more cameras were broken and damaged, and that the
accused persons also retained control over the damaged devices.
12. The prosecution would further allege that the complainant
and the persons accompanying him were wrongfully restrained and
confined within the premises for a considerable period of time and
were not permitted to leave the premises freely for more than one
hour.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. On the basis of the above allegations, the complainant
initially appears to have lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional
police, and thereafter, on the strength of proceedings under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., investigation came to be directed. Ultimately, after
investigation, the respondent police filed the impugned charge sheet
in P.R.C. No.5 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Tirunelveli, for offences under Sections 147, 149, 294(b), 341
and 323 IPC and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of
Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, arraying the present petitioner as
Accused No.2.
14. The gravamen of the accusation against the present
petitioner is not based on any independent, specific or individualised
allegation, but on the general assertion that he, along with the other
accused, formed part of the group that restrained and assaulted the
complainant party. Beyond such omnibus allegation, the prosecution
does not appear to attribute any distinct overt act to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.770 of 2026:
15. The prosecution case in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.770 of 2026, as
reflected in the impugned FIR in Crime No.402 of 2021 on the file of
Palayamkottai Police Station, is that the de facto complainant, one
Marikannan, who was working as a Supervisor under the control of
the petitioner’s brother’s family, was allegedly intercepted on
18.11.2020 while travelling on a two-wheeler along with a co-worker
near DC Nagar, Tirunelveli.
16. It is alleged that a group of persons, including the
petitioner herein, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly,
wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant, abused him in
obscene language, and physically assaulted him.
17. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant was
thereafter forcibly abducted and taken in an Innova Crysta car
bearing Registration No.TN 72 BF 0018 to a house in Tirunelveli
City, where he was allegedly wrongfully confined. It is further alleged
that during such confinement, the accused persons threatened him,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
assaulted him and coerced him into giving a statement, which was
also video recorded.
18. The prosecution would further state that the de facto
complainant was subsequently handed over to the police authorities
on the basis of a complaint said to have been given by the petitioner,
and that after police enquiry, he was released.
19. The prosecution version also indicates that the de facto
complainant had allegedly given a complaint on 19.11.2020 while
undergoing treatment at the Tirunelveli Government Medical College
Hospital, but no immediate FIR was registered. Thereafter, based on
further steps taken by the de facto complainant, the present FIR in
Crime No.402 of 2021 came to be registered on 20.06.2021 for
offences under Sections 143, 341, 294(b), 323, 365, 342 and 506(i)
IPC.
20. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that the
petitioner, along with other accused, participated in a coordinated
act of wrongful restraint, abduction, illegal confinement, intimidation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and assault, thereby committing cognizable offences attracting the
above penal provisions.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.771 of 2026:
21. The prosecution case in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.771 of 2026, as
reflected in the FIR in Crime No.221 of 2022, is that on 18.08.2022,
in connection with the property known as INTEC Workshop,
Kanagappapuram, the petitioner, along with others, formed an
unlawful assembly and committed various acts amounting to
offences under Sections 147, 447, 294(b), 324, 427 and 506(ii) IPC,
and later Section 307 IPC also came to be projected in the course of
the proceedings.
22. According to the prosecution, at about 4.00 p.m. on
18.08.2022, when the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant was
present in the company premises, the petitioner came there in
several vehicles, accompanied by nearly fifteen persons described by
the complainant as rowdy elements, and brought welding machines
and other allied equipment with the intention of removing
machineries from the premises.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23. It is alleged that when the de facto complainant objected to
such removal by stating that the company belonged to Mr.
Jegatheesan and that the machineries should not be removed, the
petitioner became enraged and directed the others to finish off the de
facto complainant. Pursuant to such alleged directions, the others
are said to have pushed the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 72 AX
5324 towards the de facto complainant with the intention of running
him over, resulting in his falling beneath the vehicle and sustaining
injuries.
24. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner’s men,
acting under his direction, damaged the windscreen of a Bolero
vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 74 Y 4465, causing a loss of
Rs.50,000/- and thereby attracting Section 427 IPC, besides other
offences. The de facto complainant was thereafter taken to
Asaripallam Medical College Hospital, and his statement was
recorded while he was inpatient. On that basis, the FIR came to be
registered and investigation was initiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The grounds projected for quash:
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22939 of 2025:
25. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22939 of 2025 seeks
quashment primarily on the grounds that:
(i) there is no specific overt act attributed to him;
(ii) he is only a salaried employee with no stake in the family
dispute;
(iii) the dispute is essentially civil in nature;
(iv) the contemporaneous inspection report of the Court-
appointed functionaries does not support the prosecution version;
(v) there are material improvements between the earliest
complaint and the subsequent version;
(vi) there is unexplained delay in registration of the FIR; and
(vii) the ingredients of Sections 147, 149, 341, 323 IPC and
Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act are not made out against him.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.770 of 2026:
26. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.770 of 2026 seeks
quashment on the grounds that:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) the FIR is a counterblast to Crime No.796 of 2020 registered
at his instance;
(ii) there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly six to
seven months in registration of the FIR;
(iii) the allegations are inherently improbable;
(iv) the de facto complainant was himself following the
petitioner and was only questioned; and
(v) the essential ingredients of Sections 143, 341, 294(b), 323,
365, 342 and 506(i) IPC are not made out even if the FIR is taken at
face value.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.771 of 2026:
27. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.771 of 2026 seeks
quashment on the grounds that:
(i) the FIR is a product of family vendetta and mala fides;
(ii) the property belongs to him under the Kaithadi Partition
Deed;
(iii) the occurrence arose only because ingress to his property
was obstructed;
(iv) the video evidence demolishes the prosecution version;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(v) there is delay in lodging the complaint;
(vi) the FIR narrative is contradicted by General Diary entries
and CSR records;
(vii) the RDO enquiry discredits the FIR;
(viii) the ingredients of Sections 147, 447, 294(b), 324, 427,
506(ii) and even Section 307 IPC are not made out; and
(ix) investigation has been kept pending for years without final
report.
The arguments on behalf of the petitioners:
28. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted, in relation to Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22939 of 2025, that the
entire prosecution is a classic instance of a purely civil and intra-
family property dispute being given a criminal colour. According to
the petitioner, the root of the dispute lies in the long-standing
partition dispute between Vaikundarajan and Jegatheesan, both
brothers, in relation to the properties of V.V. Mineral and allied
concerns. It is submitted that the family arrangement of 2010 and
the final partition deed dated 31.12.2018 conclusively divided the
properties, with Schedule C falling to the share of Vaikundarajan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and Schedule A to the share of Jegatheesan, and that the
arrangement had attained legal finality.
29. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that even when
Jegatheesan and his family members attempted to reopen the
partition through proceedings under Sections 9 and 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, all such proceedings were
dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court, and the Special Leave Petitions
preferred therefrom were also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, thereby affirming the existence and operative force of the
partition. On that basis, it is argued that the property known as V.V.
Minerals, where the alleged incident took place, was admittedly in
the possession and enjoyment of Vaikundarajan, and that the de
facto complainant had no right to enter the same.
30. The learned Senior Counsel insisted that the Receiver
appointed by this Court, along with the assistants, had only a limited
mandate, namely, to inspect properties which, though allotted to one
party, were allegedly in possession of the other. It is argued that V.V.
Minerals did not fall within that category. The inspection notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 21.04.2021, according to the petitioner, did not include the
V.V. Minerals premises, because the same was admittedly owned
and possessed by Vaikundarajan and was not under dispute. It is
further submitted that on the date of occurrence, namely
23.04.2021, the property was a sealed private premises, not open to
public access, and even the court-appointed assistants to the
Receiver refrained from entering it after being informed that the unit
had been sealed by the Government.
31. The learned Senior Counsel thus submitted that the de
facto complainant and the others who entered the premises did so
without legal sanction, and that at best there was only a verbal
altercation when objection was raised to such unauthorised entry
and videography. Heavy reliance is placed on the report of the
advocates assisting the Receiver, especially the portion extracted
from the typeset, to contend that the official report submitted before
the Hon'ble High Court only records a “wordy quarrel” and does not
record any assault, rioting, damage to property or wrongful restraint
of the complainant party.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
32. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the
cameras were not damaged in the manner projected by the
prosecution, but were only taken to prevent illegal recording inside a
sealed private property and were later handed over to the Receiver,
as reflected in the memo filed on the same day. It is contended that
the prosecution has deliberately suppressed the inspection report,
the sealed nature of the premises, and the absence of authority on
the part of the complainant to enter the property.
33. As regards the role of the present petitioner/A2, it is
argued that he is merely an employee or representative of the lawful
owner, and that no specific overt act has been attributed to him. It
was further emphasised that there is no injury, no damage, and no
independent material specifically connecting him to any act of
assault or mischief.
34. In Crl.O.P.(MD) No.770 of 2026, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the FIR is a counterblast instigated by the
brother of the petitioner through his employee, and that there was
unreasonable delay in registration. It is contended that even on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
face of the FIR, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made
out. As regards Section 143 IPC, it is argued that there are only four
named accused and vague reference to unnamed persons cannot
suffice. For Section 341 IPC, it is argued that no force or voluntary
obstruction is made out. For Section 365 IPC, it is contended that
the petitioner was not present at the place of the alleged abduction
and that the complainant actually followed the petitioner, as
reflected in the earlier counter-case lodged by the petitioner. For
Section 506(ii) IPC, it is argued that at best there was an enquiry
about why the de facto complainant was following the petitioner and
recording him and his sons, and that the allegation of criminal
intimidation is wholly inflated.
35. In Crl.O.P.(MD) No.771 of 2026, the petitioner’s counsel
submitted that the case has been unnecessarily prolonged and that
even the later addition of Section 307 IPC does not improve the
matter, because the medical record only discloses minor abrasions.
It is argued that the incident arose out of a car being manually
pushed in the context of a property access dispute and has been
grossly exaggerated into an attempt to murder case. The petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
also attempted to rely upon material forming part of the RDO
proceedings to demonstrate discrepancies in police station timing
entries and alleged harassment, though it was submitted that an
affidavit would be filed to explain the source of the annexed
materials.
36. The petitioners placed reliance on State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal1, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra2, Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021; Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh3, Criminal Appeal No.3831 of
2025; and Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu alias R.L. Chongthu
v. State of Bihar4.
The arguments on behalf of the respondents /
prosecution:
37. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the petitions are liable to be dismissed because the final report and
the materials collected during investigation clearly disclose a prima
1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
2 2021 SCC Online SC 315
3 2025 Livelaw(SC) 880
4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
facie case, and the petitioners are trying to convert the quash
jurisdiction into a mini-trial.
38. In Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22939 of 2025, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the
occurrence took place when advocates assisting the Receiver
appointed by this Court visited the property and when videography
was attempted, there was an attack on those present and video
cameras were damaged. He specifically relied upon the final report
and the statements of the two advocates who were present at the
time of occurrence, as well as the complainant’s statement, to
contend that there is sufficient prima facie material showing that
there was an altercation, the camera was snatched, and the
prosecution case cannot be thrown out at the threshold.
39. The principal argument of the learned Senior Counsel for
the 2nd respondent is that the same or very similar grounds had
already been urged by Accused No.1 Vaikundarajan in his earlier
quash petition, which was dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)
No.877 of 2025. The respondents rely heavily on paragraph 8 of that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order, wherein this Court observed that if the accused seeks to plead
right of private defence, the burden lies upon him under Section 105
of the Evidence Act and such burden can be discharged only during
trial.
40. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that all
allegations regarding mala fides on the part of the complainant or the
police are belated and legally untenable. Reliance was placed on
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharmai5, particularly paragraphs 16, 23
and 61, to argue that annexures and disputed private documents
produced by the accused cannot be treated as evidence in quash
proceedings, that allegations of mala fide against the informant
based on subsequent events are of no consequence for quashing,
and that once the accused allows the investigation to proceed till
filing of charge sheet, he cannot thereafter assail the proceedings on
the ground of mala fide investigation.
41. It is also argued that the petitioner cannot build the quash
plea on documents like the Kaithadi Pathram and allied records,
because such materials are disputed and cannot be tested in
5 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. It is specifically argued that
the accused side is attempting to introduce disputed civil documents
and ask the Court to weigh them against the prosecution case, which
is impermissible.
42. In Crl.O.P.(MD) No.770 of 2026, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the matter
is one of case and counter-case, and parity itself militates against
quashing. It is argued that the petitioner himself had earlier
contended, in proceedings filed to quash the counter-case against
him, that when a counter-case is pending there is no necessity to
stall the proceedings. On merits, it was pointed out that the
petitioner’s own complaint contains admissions showing that the de
facto complainant was caught, brought to another place, and
questioned, and that these assertions themselves prima facie attract
offences such as Sections 365, 323 and 506 IPC.
43. In Crl.O.P.(MD) No.771 of 2026, the learned Senior
Counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the petition is
premature, especially in view of the subsequent inclusion of Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
307 IPC by order of the learned Magistrate. It is argued that the
petition does not contain necessary pleadings in respect of the
Section 307 addition, and that the petitioners are trying to rely on
medical records and other materials not properly brought on record.
A strong objection was also raised to the petitioner’s reliance on
annexures said to have been obtained through or connected with the
RDO proceedings, on the ground that the source and mode of
acquisition were not disclosed. In that regard, reliance was placed on
Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate6.
44. The respondents also attacked the reliance placed on the
RDO report, arguing that the RDO had only a limited jurisdiction
under PSO 151 to enquire into police harassment, but had exceeded
that remit by venturing into matters touching upon civil rights,
police bias, merits of the FIR, and questions that properly belong
either to the criminal court or civil court. It was submitted that such
a report cannot form the basis for quashing a serious criminal case,
much less a case involving Section 307 IPC.
6 (2010) 4 SCC 329
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
45. The respondents, in effect, rely on Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra7, Criminal
Appeal No.330 of 2021, to say that criminal proceedings ought not to
be scuttled at the threshold and that unless the complaint and the
materials utterly fail to disclose an offence, the Hon'ble High Court
must refrain from interference.
The points for consideration:
46. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and materials
placed, the following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the allegations in the respective FIRs / final report,
taken at face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences
against the petitioners?
(ii) Whether the proceedings are vitiated by such patent mala
fides, absence of ingredients, or inherent improbability as would justify
interference under Section 528 BNSS?
(iii) Whether the materials relied upon by the petitioners are of
such sterling and impeccable character as to warrant quashment at the
threshold?
(iv) What reliefs, if any, are the respective petitioners entitled to?
7 2021 SCC Online SC 315
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The governing legal principles:
47. The contours of the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS,
corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., are well settled. The seminal
judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal8, continues to hold
the field. In paragraph 102 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
illustratively enumerated categories where quashing would be
justified, including cases where the allegations do not disclose any
offence, are inherently improbable, or are manifestly attended with
mala fides. Paragraph 103 contains the equally important caveat
that such power must be exercised sparingly and that the Court
should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or
genuineness of the allegations.
48. The principles were reaffirmed and elaborated in
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,9
Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that investigation should not ordinarily be thwarted at the
threshold; that an FIR need not be an encyclopaedia; that quashing
is an exception and not the rule; and that the Court, while exercising
8 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
9 2021 SCC Online SC 315
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
inherent powers, is only to see whether the allegations disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence.
49. At the same time, in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State
of Uttar Pradesh,10 Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025, relying on the
ratio in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor11, Criminal Appeal No.
174 of 2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised that where the
material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable
quality and is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions
in the complaint, the High Court may be persuaded to quash the
proceedings.
50. Equally relevant is State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma12,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned that annexures and
defence materials not forming part of the police report cannot be
treated as evidence in quash proceedings, and that appreciation of
evidence is the function of the criminal court.
10 2025 Livelaw(SC) 880
11 2013(3) SCC 330
12 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
51. In Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate13, it
was reiterated that even a public document cannot be looked into
unless the source and manner of acquisition are properly proved.
This principle assumes significance in relation to the attempt to rely
upon some annexures forming part of the RDO-related proceedings
in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.771 of 2026.
52. The principle that delay in investigation and filing of charge
sheet is a relevant consideration, though not by itself determinative,
stands recognised in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu alias R.L.
Chongthu v. State of Bihar14. Guided by the above principles, this
Court now proceeds to analyse each case separately.
Analysis in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22939 of 2025:
53. The present petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22939 of 2025
stands on a distinct footing from A1. The prosecution itself projects
A1 as the primary actor. The allegation against A2 is not of any
specifically narrated act, but only that he was among those who
joined together with A1 and others.
13 (2010) 4 SCC 329
14 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
54. This distinction is not one of mere semantics. Criminal law,
especially at the stage where a citizen seeks to be spared the ordeal
of trial, does not proceed on collective suspicion. Where several
persons are arrayed as accused, the accusation against each must
have some discernible content.
55. The complaint, FIR and final report, as placed before this
Court, do not identify what exactly A2 did, where he stood, which
particular person he assaulted, whether he handled any camera,
whether he obstructed any person, or in what manner he facilitated
any specific act. The accusation, insofar as A2 is concerned, is,
therefore, plainly omnibus.
56. A factor of substantial importance in this case is the report
submitted by the advocates assisting the Receiver appointed by this
Court. This report is contemporaneous. It is not generated in the
course of adversarial criminal litigation. It emanates from
functionaries acting under the authority of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
57. The said report does not narrate an incident of violent
assault, rioting, or wrongful confinement of the kind subsequently
projected in the complaint and charge sheet. On the contrary, it
refers only to a “wordy quarrel” and indicates that the situation was
brought under control.
58. This Court is conscious that such a report cannot be
mechanically treated as conclusive proof of innocence. At the same
time, it cannot be wholly ignored when the Court is called upon to
examine whether the prosecution story, at least against a peripheral
accused, possesses inherent credibility.
59. The dissonance between a contemporaneous judicially-
linked record and the later expanded criminal version assumes
heightened significance in a petition of this nature, especially where
the accused before the Court is not the principal actor, but a
secondary accused sought to be made constructively liable.
60. To attract Section 147 IPC, the prosecution must prima
facie establish unlawful assembly and use of force or violence by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
such assembly or any member thereof in prosecution of the common
object.
61. In the present case, there is no specific allegation that A2
used force or violence. Nor is there material disclosing how he
became part of an unlawful assembly or what common object he
shared. A bald statement that he was present with others is not
enough.
62. Vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC cannot be
fastened by mere association. There must be prima facie material
showing common object, knowledge of that object, and participation
in furtherance thereof. The final report does not disclose any prior
meeting of minds, premeditation, or identifiable conduct on the part
of A2 from which such common object can be inferred.
63. Wrongful restraint requires voluntary obstruction
preventing a person from proceeding in a direction in which such
person has a right to proceed. The prosecution has not attributed
any individual act of restraint to A2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
64. The allegation of hurt is also wholly general. No particular
injury is correlated to any act of A2. No victim attributes any specific
blow or assault to him in the materials placed before this Court.
65. To attract Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention
of Damage and Loss) Act, there must be intentional or knowing
causation of damage. There is absolutely no material to show that A2
handled any camera or damaged any property.
66. The broader background of the case is admittedly one of
bitter family and business litigation. Civil proceedings, arbitral
proceedings, execution-related disputes and contest over
management and possession provide the backdrop to the occurrence.
The law is indeed settled that the existence of a civil dispute does not
by itself negate criminality. Yet, where the accusation against a
particular accused is nebulous, and where that accused is only an
employee with no stake in the underlying civil contest, the Court
must be astute to the possibility of over-implication.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
67. In the considered view of this Court, the present
petitioner/A2 appears to have been drawn into the prosecution more
because of his association with A1 than because of any clearly
attributable criminal act.
68. Much reliance was placed by the respondents on the
dismissal of A1’s quash petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.877 of 2025. This
Court is unable to hold that such dismissal, by itself, forecloses the
present petitioner’s plea.
69. A1 stood on a wholly different footing. The allegations
against A1 were direct and central. The present petitioner/A2 stands
on a peripheral footing, with no specific overt act attributed to him.
The fate of A1’s petition, therefore, cannot mechanically govern A2’s
case.
70. Applying the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal15 and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, this Court is of the view
that, insofar as the present petitioner/A2 is concerned, the materials
15 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
do not disclose a prima facie case sufficient to compel him to face
trial.
71. The continuation of proceedings against him would
amount to subjecting a person, against whom the accusation is
essentially faceless and omnibus, to unnecessary criminal process.
Such continuation would be an abuse of process.
Analysis in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.770 of 2026:
72. The prosecution in this case alleges wrongful restraint,
assault, abduction, confinement and intimidation. The petitioner
projects a rival narrative that the complainant was himself following
him, that he was merely apprehended and handed over to the police,
and that the present FIR is a counterblast to Crime No.796 of 2020.
The central difficulty in accepting the petitioner’s plea at the
threshold lies in the fact that this case presents a clear case-and-
counter-case structure. The rival versions are not collateral; they are
directly adversarial. To accept one version and reject the other at this
stage would necessarily require this Court to enter the forbidden
terrain of factual adjudication.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
73. It is true that the FIR came to be registered only on
20.06.2021 though the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on
18.11.2020. However, the 2nd respondent has set out a sequence of
events, namely, the recording of complaint while in hospital, the
subsequent postal complaint, and the recourse under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. Whether that explanation is ultimately satisfactory is a
matter for appreciation on evidence. At the quash stage, where the
delay is sought to be explained through procedural inaction by
police, this Court cannot conclude that the delay by itself demolishes
the FIR.
74. The petitioner would contend that only four persons are
named and therefore unlawful assembly is not made out. This
argument is not sufficient at this stage because the FIR itself speaks
of the petitioner and others. At the stage of quash, the Court cannot
truncate the prosecution version by counting only named accused if
the allegation is of a larger group.
75. The FIR alleges interception and restraint. Whether such
restraint actually occurred, or whether the complainant was merely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stopped and questioned, is a matter of proof. It cannot be said, at
this stage, that the ingredients are wholly absent.
76. The petitioner’s own version in the earlier complaint, as
pointed out by the respondent, appears to acknowledge that the
complainant was caught, brought, and dealt with. The exact legal
quality of that conduct is a matter for trial, but it cannot be said that
the allegations of abduction and confinement are so absurd on their
face as to warrant quash. The prosecution relies on hospital
treatment. The petitioner disputes the nature and extent of injury.
This is plainly evidentiary.
77. Whether the conduct and words attributed to the petitioner
amount to criminal intimidation also cannot be pre-judged at this
stage, especially where the complainant alleges coercion and fear.
78. The contention that the FIR is a counterblast to Crime No.
796 of 2020 is a weighty submission, but not a decisive one for
quash in the present factual matrix. Criminal law does encounter
counter-versions. The existence of a prior FIR may lend context; it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
does not, by itself, nullify the later FIR if the later FIR discloses a
prima facie case.
79. Indeed, if the earlier case itself was found by this Court to
warrant full investigation, it would be difficult to hold, at this
preliminary stage, that the connected counter-version deserves to be
shut out altogether.
80. This Court is therefore unable to hold that the FIR in
Crime No.402 of 2021 falls within any of the State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal16 categories so plainly as to justify quashing.
81. The contentions raised by the petitioner, though
substantial, are in the realm of defence and factual rebuttal. They
may be urged before the competent forum at the appropriate stage.
This is not a fit case for interference under Section 528 BNSS.
Analysis in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.771 of 2026.
82. A substantial part of the petitioner’s argument is built on
the premise that the INTEC Workshop property belongs exclusively
16 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to him under the Kaithadi Partition Deed dated 31.12.2018 and that,
therefore, no allegation of trespass or wrongful conduct can lie
against him in relation to his own property.
83. This submission, though facially attractive, encounters an
important difficulty. The respondents have specifically pointed out
that the issue regarding the validity, veracity and enforceability of
the Kaithadi document has again come under challenge and,
according to them, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated
10.02.2026, has left the issue to be adjudicated by the competent
civil Court.
84. Therefore, the petitioner’s assertion of title and exclusive
possession is not a pristine and incontrovertible fact for the purpose
of these quash proceedings. It remains a disputed civil issue. This
Court cannot, in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, conclusively
pronounce upon title and possession in a manner that would
effectively decide civil rights.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
85. The petitioner has heavily relied upon the enquiry report of
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil, which is said to record
findings that the incident was falsely projected, that injuries were
exaggerated, and that the concerned police officer manipulated
records and forged the CSR.
86. This Court is not inclined to treat the RDO report as a
decisive foundation for quash. The respondents are right in
contending that the Executive Magistrate does not possess
jurisdiction to adjudicate the legal sustainability of a pending
criminal investigation in the manner sought to be projected.
87. Further, the report is itself under challenge in its reach
and scope. The respondents also object to the use of annexures
connected with the RDO proceedings on the ground that their source
and mode of acquisition are not properly established.
88. In view of Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji
Kokate17, this Court must be circumspect in acting upon such
materials at the quash stage. Therefore, while the RDO report may
17 (2010) 4 SCC 329
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
form part of the petitioner’s broader grievance against the manner of
registration, it cannot by itself furnish an unimpeachable basis to
quash the FIR.
89. The petitioner has pointed out contradictions between the
FIR timeline and the General Diary entries, particularly as to when
the complaint was received, whether the officer left the station, and
whether the FIR was registered in the manner stated.
90. These are undoubtedly serious allegations. However, they
are not self-proving merely because they are asserted. Their legal
effect would depend upon proof, explanation and proper evidentiary
examination.
91. At the stage of quash, this Court cannot undertake a
forensic reconstruction of station diary entries and hospital timelines
so as to pronounce upon the falsity of the FIR.
92. The FIR alleges that the petitioner came along with several
persons and used force in relation to the occurrence. Whether they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
constituted an unlawful assembly with common object is a matter to
be investigated and, if necessary, tried. It cannot be said at this stage
that Section 147 IPC is wholly ex facie absent.
93. The petitioner argues that one cannot trespass into one’s
own property. In principle, that proposition is correct. But in the
present case, the premise of exclusive title and lawful possession is
itself disputed. The Court cannot accept the petitioner’s civil title as
an established fact so as to quash the criminal case on that basis.
94. The FIR may be vulnerable on the ground that specific
obscene words are not reproduced. Yet, whether that aspect alone
should lead to quash of the entire FIR is another matter. At best, it is
a weakness in one count; it does not erase the remaining allegations.
95. The petitioner submits that no dangerous weapon is
alleged. The FIR, however, projects an occurrence involving forcible
movement of a vehicle and injury. Whether Section 324 is strictly
attracted, or whether some other penal provision is more apt, is a
matter for the investigating agency and, ultimately, the trial court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Misdescription or overstatement of one section does not warrant
quash of the entire FIR when the core allegations still disclose
cognizable conduct.
96. There is a specific allegation regarding damage to the
windscreen of a Bolero vehicle and quantification of loss at Rs.
50,000/-. That allegation, on its face, cannot be said to be too vague
to survive threshold scrutiny. The FIR alleges threats and
intimidation in the course of a heated and allegedly violent
occurrence. Whether the threat meets the legal threshold of criminal
intimidation is again not something this Court can conclusively
decide at this stage.
97. Much emphasis was placed by the petitioner on the later
addition of Section 307 IPC. This Court finds force in the submission
that the factual allegations, as presently projected, do not obviously
spell out a clear homicidal intention in the classical sense. However,
the question here is not whether conviction under Section 307 would
ultimately follow, but whether the prosecution should be quashed in
limine.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
98. Once the core occurrence itself is under investigation and
the allegation includes use of a vehicle in a manner said to endanger
life, this Court would be slow to interdict the entire matter merely
because the petitioner disputes the applicability of Section 307 IPC.
That issue may well be tested at the appropriate procedural stage.
99. The petitioner is justified in complaining that the
investigation has remained pending for an unduly long period. The
alleged occurrence is of the year 2022 and yet no final report has
been filed.
100. In Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu alias R.L.
Chongthu v. State of Bihar18, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
underscored that investigations cannot continue endlessly and that
undue delay is a relevant ground for invoking the High Court’s
jurisdiction.
101. However, delay in investigation, though a relevant
circumstance, does not necessarily mandate quash where the FIR
discloses prima facie offences and the issues remain factually
18 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contested. The proper course, in the peculiar facts of this case,
would be to direct expeditious completion of investigation.
102. This Court is therefore unable to hold that Crl.O.P.(MD)
No.771 of 2026 deserves quashment at the threshold. The
petitioner’s case is substantially built on disputed facts, civil title,
contested documents, and the RDO report, none of which can be
treated as conclusive at this stage.
103. Nevertheless, the prolonged pendency of investigation
cannot be countenanced and deserves to be curtailed by an
appropriate direction.
Epilogue:
104. The criminal law is not to be permitted to become a
private weapon in family wars, nor can the cloak of civil dispute be
used to sterilise allegations that may yet disclose genuine
criminality. The present batch exhibits both dangers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
105. In Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22939 of 2025, the accusation against
A2 is too diffuse, too omnibus, and too weakly supported to justify
compelling him to undergo the ordeal of trial.
106. In Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.770 of 2026 and 771 of 2026,
however, the issues are deeply factual, the rival narratives are sharp,
and the allegations, taken at face value, cannot be said to be so
absurd or legally sterile as to warrant annihilation of the proceedings
at the threshold.
107. The inherent power of this Court is neither ornamental
nor unbridled. It is a power of constitutional prudence invoked to cut
short abuse, but never to pre-empt lawful adjudication where the
truth must emerge through the discipline of investigation and trial.
108. In the result,
(i) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22939 of 2025 is allowed. The proceedings
in P.R.C. No.5 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Tirunelveli, are quashed insofar as the petitioner/A2 is
concerned alone.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.770 of 2026 is dismissed. It is open to the
petitioner to raise all factual and legal defences before the competent
Court at the appropriate stage.
(iii) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.771 of 2026 is dismissed. However, the
1st respondent police is directed to complete the investigation in
F.I.R.Nos. 402 of 2021 & 221 of 2022 and file final report within a
period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
OCU, CBCID,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The Inspector of Police,
Palayamkottai Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Anjugramam Police Station,
Kanniyakumari District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.22939 of 2025, 770 & 771 of 2026
30.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
